In The Passionate Teacher, Robert Fried claims that the greatest obstacle we face as teachers is what he terms the, "Game of School (GOS)". The premise of the GOS is an interesting one, and certainly one that any student can associate with. The idea that school becomes a mutual charade of learning as students take the path of least resistance and do the minimal work required to meet expectations and teachers adjust expectations to align with the rules of the game seems reasonable and logical when Fried first introduces it. The major issues arise as he isolates it as its own entity and presents a utopian vision of a school free from the GOS. These issues are deepened by his insistence that the GOS is by its nature, a hindrance to learning. The philosophy of the GOS as a free standing entity is predicated off of the belief that students want to learn and are eager to conquer intellectual challenges. While this belief is certainly true, children's minds are often running rampant with schemes and attempts to justify, understand and control the world around them, it ignores the fact that the classroom is a socially constructed time and space for learning to occur. One of the first obstacles that Fried discredits as a lesser obstacle is "Parents who seem not to care about what kids learn at school or at home". With the vast amount of easily accessible knowledge, or even diversions, a young student with an apathetic parent is going to walk into the classroom with a predisposition to play the GOS and parental reinforcement that school is something you go to because you "have" to. A student who walks into the classroom on his/her first day has started his/her rookie season in the GOS as soon as he/she is told that school is mandatory and toys/tv/playing in the sand box have to wait until after school. Not only are students biased towards playing the game by the mandatory nature of school, playing it is the reasonable and prudent response to lack of stimulation, challenge, and perceived worth. Students live in a constant state of time and energy triage and nobody likes when his/her time is wasted. Even if every teacher perfectly engaged every student and made every assignment meaningful, thought provoking, and the correct level of challenging, students would find certain topics more interesting than others based on past personal experience. It is unreasonable to believe that a student who is drawn to history and understanding the past is going to spend as much effort on his/her science hw regardless of how meaning full the science course may be. Children and adolescents are wired to absorb knowledge, make connections, and learn. They are going to prioritize their time to maximize gains, just like any adult would. A majority of students, whether consciously or subconsciously, can detect busy work and will do the bare minimum to obtain "success" (an arbitrary measure based on perceived goals and risk/reward calculations) I agree with many of the points Fried makes about the GOS. I strongly disagree with his solution to it. His ideal school setting is one where neither student nor teacher takes part in the GOS. My ideal school setting is where the teachers create an atmosphere of learning by acknowledging the game, anticipating the game, controlling the game, and changing the victory conditions of the game. The student's side of the game will never go away. As long as students take a full class load, participate in extracurricular activities, work part or full time jobs, and have passions and hobbies outside of academia Fried's GOS will be the natural extension of students prioritizing their time. The GOS is also an important education tool in itself. Fried's arguments do not make the GOS the obstacle to education he claims, it is letting the apathetic and untrained players win that creates the obstacles. If anything, the students will always be the players, the teachers need to step into the role of coach, administrators the officials, and the parents the fans.
On a completely different note, I think that the single most terrifyingly accurate description in the passage is that of the "A' student. The idea that A grades are set aside from taking risks, and the societal benefits of getting A's outweighs the intellectual benefits of taking risks and opening oneself up to failure, is perhaps one of the more depressing trends I have witnessed with friends of mine and with friends of my younger brother.
The philosophy of the GOS as a free standing entity is predicated off of the belief that students want to learn and are eager to conquer intellectual challenges. While this belief is certainly true, children's minds are often running rampant with schemes and attempts to justify, understand and control the world around them, it ignores the fact that the classroom is a socially constructed time and space for learning to occur. One of the first obstacles that Fried discredits as a lesser obstacle is "Parents who seem not to care about what kids learn at school or at home". With the vast amount of easily accessible knowledge, or even diversions, a young student with an apathetic parent is going to walk into the classroom with a predisposition to play the GOS and parental reinforcement that school is something you go to because you "have" to. A student who walks into the classroom on his/her first day has started his/her rookie season in the GOS as soon as he/she is told that school is mandatory and toys/tv/playing in the sand box have to wait until after school. Not only are students biased towards playing the game by the mandatory nature of school, playing it is the reasonable and prudent response to lack of stimulation, challenge, and perceived worth. Students live in a constant state of time and energy triage and nobody likes when his/her time is wasted. Even if every teacher perfectly engaged every student and made every assignment meaningful, thought provoking, and the correct level of challenging, students would find certain topics more interesting than others based on past personal experience. It is unreasonable to believe that a student who is drawn to history and understanding the past is going to spend as much effort on his/her science hw regardless of how meaning full the science course may be. Children and adolescents are wired to absorb knowledge, make connections, and learn. They are going to prioritize their time to maximize gains, just like any adult would. A majority of students, whether consciously or subconsciously, can detect busy work and will do the bare minimum to obtain "success" (an arbitrary measure based on perceived goals and risk/reward calculations)
I agree with many of the points Fried makes about the GOS. I strongly disagree with his solution to it. His ideal school setting is one where neither student nor teacher takes part in the GOS. My ideal school setting is where the teachers create an atmosphere of learning by acknowledging the game, anticipating the game, controlling the game, and changing the victory conditions of the game. The student's side of the game will never go away. As long as students take a full class load, participate in extracurricular activities, work part or full time jobs, and have passions and hobbies outside of academia Fried's GOS will be the natural extension of students prioritizing their time. The GOS is also an important education tool in itself. Fried's arguments do not make the GOS the obstacle to education he claims, it is letting the apathetic and untrained players win that creates the obstacles. If anything, the students will always be the players, the teachers need to step into the role of coach, administrators the officials, and the parents the fans.
On a completely different note, I think that the single most terrifyingly accurate description in the passage is that of the "A' student. The idea that A grades are set aside from taking risks, and the societal benefits of getting A's outweighs the intellectual benefits of taking risks and opening oneself up to failure, is perhaps one of the more depressing trends I have witnessed with friends of mine and with friends of my younger brother.